|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| READY TO BOMB? | |
 March 18, 1999 
|
||
|
|
Serbia continues to resist efforts to find a solution to the crisis in Kosovo, making NATO military action more likely. After this background report, Jim Lehrer talks to members of the Senate who are debating possible air strikes against Serbia.
|
|
MARGARET WARNER: In Paris today, Kosovo VUK DRASKOVIC, Vice Prime Minister, Yugoslavia: If they want to produce the failure of Paris negotiations with only target to blame Serbian nation and Serbian state for the failure of Paris talks and to I mean order air strikes against Serbia, in that case what can we do? What can we do? MARGARET WARNER: In Kosovo itself, the Yugoslav Army continued a massive
buildup inside the province and along its borders, with a troop strength
estimated at 30,000 or more. Inside Kosovo, Serb forces pressed their
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
A dangerous mission. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Kosovo was also the topic today on Capitol Hill. Two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that there could be U.S. casualties if NATO launches air strikes against Serbia. General Michael Ryan, the Air Force Chief of Staff, said that because the Yugoslav air defenses are so well protected, there is a distinct possibility we will lose aircraft in trying to penetrate those defenses. General Charles Kruklak, the Marine Corps Commandant, said of the air operation: "It is going to be tremendously dangerous." The administration's senior national security team arrived at the Capitol early this afternoon for closed door briefings on the Kosovo crisis. After the meeting, Majority Leader Trent Lott said there are still too many questions that have not been answered.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Is bombing inevitable? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Now to Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, who's chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and three other Senators, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Democrats Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; Max Cleland of Georgia. JIM LEHRER: Senator Warner, do you believe that NATO strikes against Serbian targets are now all but inevitable?
JIM LEHRER: Senator Lieberman, do you believe -- do you agree with Senator Lott and now Senator Warner that the predicate has not been laid by the President and others for these air strikes?
JIM LEHRER: Have you, Senator Lieberman, transmitted what you just said to the President, or to people at the White House? SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: I have, indeed. And I'm hopeful that that course will be followed quite soon. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Does the administration have an exit strategy? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Senator Hutchison, you have been very open in your opposition to air strikes. Do they continue tonight, that opposition? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, (R) Texas: Well, my opposition had been
to ground troops - and certainly without a plan. Now I am concerned
about air strikes until we have a complete strategy. I agree with Senator
JIM LEHRER: Were those questions that you enumerated, were those asked of the administration officials today at the briefing? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well, I would say, in general, we were talking to the administration to try to see what their plans were. And, speaking for myself, I was not convinced that they had really thought through what we would do as an exit strategy. And that concerns me greatly. And I think there is a concern among many members of the Senate that we follow through on threats, yes, but that we do it in a responsible way, and that we have a complete strategy before we take the first step. JIM LEHRER: Senator Cleland, what are your concerns tonight about this?
JIM LEHRER: The last step meaning, in other words, if you're willing to air strike, then you have got to be -- what else are you will doing as a last -- in other words, are we willing to put in ground troops, that sort of thing? SEN. MAX W. CLELAND: Yes. You have to know, Klausewitz, the great German theoretician on war, said you must know the last step you are going to take before you take the first step. And that's not what has been fully articulated here. What is our last step? What is the end game? What are we ultimately willing to do militarily to accomplish this political negotiated settlement we want? I'm not sure that has been fully articulated. And before we take the first step of committing young Americans in harm's way, the President must speak to the nation and explain the last step, as well as the first step. So we all want a negotiated settlement, but I have grave concerns personally right now about the value of an air strike and whether or not it's necessary, needed or would be effective. JIM LEHRER: Why? What are your questions about it? SEN. MAX W. CLELAND: Well, one wonders how much? Are we trying to bomb one party in the civil war into submission to the other party in order to get a negotiated settlement? How many pilots are we going to lose? How will that sit not only with NATO members but our American citizens? There are a lot of questions still unanswered about military commitment in Kosovo. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| What are the goals? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Senator Warner, in general terms, I know there are details about this that shouldn't be discussed openly at this point, but, in general, what would be the purpose of the bombing as you understand it? Would they go after military targets only, only in Serbia, only in Kosovo, designed to what, to get them to surrender, get them to retreat, to get them to do what? SEN. JOHN WARNER: Very clearly, the operation has been planned in terms of the air strikes. You would first use just missiles -- then if it's necessary, further strikes. And then there would be a period in which the allied nations of NATO would pull back and say to Milosevic, "All right, unless you come forward and stop this civil war, and agree to the certain terms that we've laid down in France, it will resume." So at the moment, there is a very clear message being sent by NATO. I think our collective concern here is that we've got to gain the support of the American people and the Congress before we commit our forces into this action. And steps are underway to achieve those goals. JIM LEHRER: Now, Senator Lieberman, then the first round of bombing would be essentially warning shots, is that right? There's more where this came from if you don't listen up, is that it? SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: They would be more than warning shots. They wouldn't be shots over the bow; they'd be shots at the boat. JIM LEHRER: Like at what? SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Well, that's an area I think I should not go into, but they'd hurt. But I think they would be a preface, they would be a message to Milosevic that we take this seriously, and if he doesn't negotiate a peace agreement, that we're prepared to hit even harder. And again there's risk to this and there's no clear guarantee that it will work. But I think as we consider the risks involved in military action, we've got to consider what would happen if we don't take action. I think he will invade Kosovo, there will be a massacre. There is a danger that the Albanians and 90 percent of the Kosovars are Albanians, the nation of Albania will enter the fray. You could involve other countries in the area, including ultimately our NATO allies Greece and Turkey. So this is a question of NATO's credibility, U.S. credibility, and our willingness to show some leadership against a dictator who has caused something but trouble in the Balkans for the last ten years; that's Milosevic. JIM LEHRER: Senator Hutchison, do you see it the same way Senator Lieberman does, that we must do something in order to prevent what he just said? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I'm very concerned about our undertaking an offense against a sovereign nation. I think we've got to be very clear how far we're willing to go. What happens if we bomb and Milosevic continues to do bad things to the Albanians? What happens if we bomb again and he still doesn't lift? What is the next thing that we do? We've got to know. Are we willing to put ground troops in the middle of a civil war? I certainly hope not. I think we' got to be very careful before we take a step like this that we know how much we're prepared to do and how much we're prepared to intervene in a civil war in a sovereign nation. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Should we keep Milosevic guessing? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Senator Hutchison, what would you say to those who say yes, but if we know, that means also Milosevic knows, so he can wait out any kind of -- in other words, if we say we are only going to do a little bombing and maybe a little bit of a second bombing but we're not going to put in ground forces. In other words, the argument goes, don't we want to keep him guessing and not lay out of our plans? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well, what concerns me is that Milosevic will know that if we are not fully committed, if we don't have a full strategy, that Americans will lose some lives and pull back. I think that's what his strategy would be. I don't want him to think that. If we are going to go full force all the way to the end, then he will know that, I hope, if we have a strategy. But if we don't, then I'm afraid that he's going to not know what we're going to do and we certainly have not shown that we are willing to follow all the way through in other areas of the world. And I think that's not a good position for the United States. JIM LEHRER: Are you against a policy that would go all the way to the end? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I am against a policy. I would have to know a whole lot more about how long the commitment would be. I would be for perhaps putting troops into a peacekeeping situation with a peace agreement for a short period of time that would allow the peace to have time to settle in. But I want an exit strategy. And I would not vote for that today. JIM LEHRER: Well, Senator Cleland, where do you come down on this question? You said you wanted to know what the end is going to be. What are the limits to how much can be said about going into a situation like that? SEN. MAX W. CLELAND: Well, let's talk about that for a second. I think it's up to us to determine what we want out of this. And I think it's not been fully articulated. Senator Hutchison is correct. I think that three things must be done. First, you ought to articulate why you are committing young Americans into harm's way; two, what the mission is and when that's completed, and you have got to be able to understand that; and then finally, third, how are you going to get out of it? Otherwise, you just get young Americans put at risk, maybe some die, and it ends up being an open-ended conflict, and we end up debating why we're there. I got into one of those conflicts - it was called Vietnam. I don't want to see us do that again. Therefore, I'm insistent, myself, as a member of the Senate that we articulate exactly what we are doing and why and how we are going to get out of there. If we aren't able to meet those goals, I don't think we ought to get involved militarily in Kosovo. JIM LEHRER: And you mean articulate them to Milosevic, as well as the rest of the world. SEN. MAX W. CLELAND: Look, I think everybody ought to know the posture of the United States in this business. We're the key player in NATO. If we don't go in, the Europeans probably won't go in. I think it's up to us - and particularly those of us in the Senate -- to fully air this out and let's commit the country first and then the troops - then the troops won't have to worry about it when they come home. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| The debate in the Senate. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: And, Senator Warner, you said on Monday you all are going to begin debate on these very issues, is that correct? SEN. JOHN WARNER: To the best of my understanding. Leader Lott, he thinks this is very critical and important; he wants to involve all Senators in it. And I totally support his course of action to try and get it out in the open in a simple statement of language, which Senator Hutchison and I've been working on this afternoon, and let the nation certainly hear the Senate debate. But prior thereto, I strongly urge the President to come out and in clear terms tell the people of the country what is at stake. JIM LEHRER: Would the debate in the Senate be designed to end in something like a resolution, hey we think this is a great idea, or we think it's a terrific idea or a bad idea? SEN. JOHN WARNER: The Senate is willing to step up to its responsibility, when in many ways the Congress has co-equal responsibility wit the President on a serious matter like this. And the resolution will be drafted in such a way that every Senator can get up and state freely their own thoughts. And I think the vote, however it comes out, will clearly send a signal as to whether we're standing with the House, which although that resolution is not very clear, it's been interpreted as saying they support action. Now the question is will the Senate? But we should not, and our colleagues here have said that, send young men and women into harm's way until it is clear that the Congress of the United States stands with them. SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Jim, if I could just add to what John just said, the House resolution does ask the President for a plan and an exit strategy. JIM LEHRER: Okay. And you're going - you all are going to do the same? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I think that the Senate is going to insist that the President come for authorization before we take military action. That's what I would hope. JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, Senators all four, thank you very much. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
Albanian
negotiators put their signatures on a peace accord that would grant
them autonomy, but not full independence from Serbia. The signing clears
the way for NATO to deliver on its threat to bomb Serb targets if the
Serbs refuse to join the Albanians in approving the agreement. But the
Serbs have stiffened their resistance in recent days. They object to
the planned deployment of 28,000 NATO troops, including 4,000 Americans,
to police the accord. 
And
they also are raising objections to the political provisions of the
autonomy plan. In the face of this resistance, the Western diplomats
who convened the Paris talks said they now were conferring on whether
to shut them down. Serb officials protested that they were being set
up. 
offensive against the Albanians, setting villages afire and shelling
strongholds of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Serb soldiers were seen looting
from homes in rural areas. More than 2,000 people have died in the conflict
in the past year, and hundreds of thousands of residents have had to
evacuate their homes and villages. In Washington, White House Spokesman
Joe Lockhart said after the signing in Paris that the next move would
be determined by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. 
JOE
LOCKHART, White House Spokesman: This is a decisive phase, as I've said,
because the Kosovar Albanians have signed, and he faces a choice; he
faces a choice of moving down a path that can bring peace, the end to
oppression of the Kosovar Albanians and autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians.
Or he can go down a path that will, by necessity, be a path of further
bloodshed. 
SEN.
TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: I just don't think that the predicate has
been laid; that the Senate, let alone the American people, know enough
about what the reasons are for potential air strikes at this time; what
are the risks, what do we hope to achieve; and what happened next. It's
-- I'm not saying that is - as a criticism - I'm just saying that we
need t know lot more than we presently have been advised. The Senate
is expected to debate the Kosovo issue later this evening or tomorrow.
SEN.
JOHN WARNER, Chairman, Armed Services Committee: We certainly have to
convey that message to Slobodan Milosevic. There is no doubt about it.
And that's why I, today in chairing the Armed Services Committee, brought
out from our service chiefs, the seriousness of this operation. In terms
of the risks to be taken by American aviators -- and we will be the
predominant number of aircraft in such strikes -- together with our
allies, France, Great Britain, Italy. What is happening is that NATO
is faced with the need, if Slobodan Milosevic does not sign, of starting
an undeclared war against a sovereign nation, a nation that is beset
by a frightful civil war. And unless such action is taken, that civil
war could explode beyond its borders with refugees, destabilize the
situation that we've achieved in Bosnia, and indeed engage other nations
in combat. On the other hand, this is so serious that the President,
I believe, must go to the nation as soon as possible, declaring unequivocally
what the goals are, the risks that our aviators and others must take,
and what is the exit strategy. And Senator Lott, Senator Hutchison,
and I and others are trying to prevail on that to be done immediately.
Now the Senate could, as early as I think Monday, take up some form
of resolution so that each Senator can express their views on this serious
subject. The credibility of NATO is at stake. 
SEN.
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (D) Connecticut: No, but I guess my answer is yes
and no. The predicate has been laid but perhaps it has not been discussed
and advocated broadly enough. I mean the administration has been involved
in this policy since last year. In October, a cease-fire was negotiated,
and we threatened to take air action against the Serbs then if they
didn't comply with the cease-fire, and they did not. So we're at a point
now where the Kosovars have come a long way and accepted an agreement
much short of what they wanted. And the Serbs are not only not accepting
it, they are massing troops within Kosovo and on the borders. We're
in a very delicate, dangerous situation without any risks -- a course
without a risk. But it seems to me the administration is heading in
the right direction, following a principled course, and, yes, I think
the President, as John Warner has said, should speak to the nation on
this and should involve a widening circle of members of Congress and
then should go ahead and do what is right and accept the responsibility
of leadership. 
Lieberman that we did threaten, and it is important that NATO follow
through on threats. But I want to make sure that we don't take step
one until we know what step two, three, and four are going to be. What
are we going to do if the bombing doesn't work? What are we going to
do if a plane is shot down? What are we going to do if there is an American
prisoner of war? I think we have to have the end game; we have to have
a strategy for each eventuality before we take step one. 
SEN.
MAX W. CLELAND, (D) Georgia: Well, I think you have to know the last
step you are going to take before you take the first step militarily.
I think that's an axiom of successful military engagement. Secondly,
another -